[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Minnihan) wrote: > > >>In all the years I've used CVS, I've institutionalized use of 'cvs >>export' only briefly at one client. And that was only to satisfy some >>nimrod (who didn't understand cvs) who screamed - repeatedly - "get rid >>of all these CVS files!". Presence - or absence - of the CVS admin >>structure hasn't had the slightest impact (positively or negatively on >>its own merit)on the success of failure of any of the thousands of >>releases I've produced. Period. 'cvs co' with a known tag is the way >>to go. >> > > I agree that I prefer 'cvs co'. We run automated builds of several products > and prefer to have incremental updates to the source tree (thus requiring > checkout not export). > > Plus I seem to recall that in CVS 1.10.8, you cannot export directories that > have default log messages specified in rcsinfo (you get an error about not > being able to create CVS/Entries files). We would use 1.11.1p1, but we've had > to revert to 1.10.8 as CVS 1.11.1p1 dies with protocol errors all over the > place during the nightly checkouts.
I had the 'protocol error:uncounted data' checkout failures too. The frequency of the errors increased as the repository grew. I took a gamble that it was less of a CVS-caused error and more of a CVS reaction to the system. This was after reading the source, and groking it only a little bit. After adding more RAM (very inexpensive these days) to my repository server, the problem hasn't reappeared. -- John Minnihan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.freepository.com _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
